My (lay) understanding of this is that there are two separate issues: 1) Company contributes (back) to the project. 2) Company provides sources of whatever they did.
Obviously #1 is preferable, assuming the mods are palatable, but only #2 is required. It would take an interested (and possibly third) party to fold #2's back to #1's. All this discussion seems to be focused on #1, but Sony is (?) in the #2 camp. Unless maybe they're in #3: 3) Company takes sources and never exhibits its modifications. I thought that only #3's were liable. #2's are merely annoying. Free means free. Free to be a bit of a jerk about it, if that's what they want to do. Free to obfuscate all the code, free to rot13 all the non-keyword vowels in the code, etc. So long as they make the results available. -- Jim _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
